Can CCO Theory Tell Us How Organizing Is Distinct From Markets, Networking, Belonging to a Community, or Supporting a Social Movement?
Can CCO Theory Tell Us How Organizing Is Distinct From Markets, Networking, Belonging to a Community, or Supporting a Social Movement?
复制标题
CCO 理论能否告诉我们组织与市场、网络、社区归属或支持社会运动有何不同？
DOI：
10.1177/0893318909352022
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
J. Sillince
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Sillince
McPhee和Zaug（2009）提出了组织由成员协商、组织自结构、活动协调和制度定位四个沟通过程构成的理论。我在这里的论点是，为了说明组织构成需要什么，我们必须考虑与任何其他集体相比，组织的独特之处是什么。其他类型的集体包括汽车销售等市场、相互交流的步行爱好者等网络、城市等社区、同性恋权利等社会运动。在我看来，作为组织构成要素的传播理论（CCO；见Putnam & Nicotera， 2009，本论坛的主题）必须能够展示组织是如何形成和维持的，而不是说市场或网络。我使用并扩展了McPhee和Zaug所使用的逻辑，他们认为朋友群体不是一个组织。我的观点是，McPhee和Zaug的模型也可以适用于这些其他的集体形式，因此它的组织性不足。
McPhee and Zaug (2009) advanced a theory that organizations are constituted by the four communication processes of membership negotiation, organizational self-structuring, activity coordination, and institutional positioning. My argument here is that in order to say what organizational constitution entails, we must consider what is distinctive about an organization as compared with any other collective. Examples of other types of collectives include markets such as car sales, networks such as walking enthusiasts who communicate with each other, communities such as cities, and social movements such as gay rights. A theory of communication as constitutive of organizing (CCO; see Putnam & Nicotera, 2009, the subject of this forum) must, in my view, be able to show how organizations are formed and maintained rather than say markets or networks. I use and extend the same logic as McPhee and Zaug use when they argue how groups of friends are not an organization. My argument is that McPhee and Zaug's model can also apply to these other collective forms and thus that it is insufficiently organizational.